From https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-23/nsw-sydney-giggle-transgender-discrimination-court-judgment/104260546
> Reading out a summary of his decision today, Justice Bromwich said the defendants considered sex to mean the sex of a person at birth, which they consider to be unchangeable. "These arguments failed because the view propounded by the respondents conflicted with a long history of cases decided by courts going back over 30 years," he said.
Well, if this is the way the legal biscuit crumbles, then it is more than obvious that there needs to be actual legislation on what "sex" means in legal contexts. Basically previous confusion or muddled thinking causes bad or stupid decisions somewhere down the line.
And btw, this is why I harp on about definitions in general and in legal contexts specifically, but that's a side point.
> [...] the successful claim of indirect discrimination was based on a condition being imposed for the use of the Giggle app that Ms Tickle was required to have the appearance of a cisgender woman.
This is the problem. If the court first dismisses that "sex" is a biological category in law, then it can freely pivot to this idea that it all hinges on mere appearances. The argument can be internally logical, even though it is based on a rotten premise.
At least the judge decided against forcing a written apology, acknowledging that Grover holds her beliefs sincerely and is not deviating from them. Although, out of all the small blessings...
(thanks @HebrideanHecate for the link)
The Dread Slender Gnome /
npub1dz…mrpr0
2024-08-23 07:34:50
Author Public Key
npub1dza8s6acmt45awz3g7k3rmeuduxd766yltutsyw0g63r4uefpets6mrpr0Published at
2024-08-23 07:34:50Event JSON
{
"id": "abd92549e26bc99ef4f996c4f1ad4b59a4012abba112ab2fa93d473598cdcf7d",
"pubkey": "68ba786bb8daeb4eb85147ad11ef3c6f0cdf6b44faf8b811cf46a23af3290e57",
"created_at": 1724398490,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"d0b1d4c6090b28f294a12ffa01dc86479ad7f589a37214bf189f523637029df9"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://spinster.xyz/objects/f310f541-0e88-4075-86b1-7c4f7be51c58",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://spinster.xyz/objects/f310f541-0e88-4075-86b1-7c4f7be51c58",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"-"
]
],
"content": "From https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-23/nsw-sydney-giggle-transgender-discrimination-court-judgment/104260546\n\n\u003e Reading out a summary of his decision today, Justice Bromwich said the defendants considered sex to mean the sex of a person at birth, which they consider to be unchangeable. \"These arguments failed because the view propounded by the respondents conflicted with a long history of cases decided by courts going back over 30 years,\" he said. \n\nWell, if this is the way the legal biscuit crumbles, then it is more than obvious that there needs to be actual legislation on what \"sex\" means in legal contexts. Basically previous confusion or muddled thinking causes bad or stupid decisions somewhere down the line. \nAnd btw, this is why I harp on about definitions in general and in legal contexts specifically, but that's a side point. \n\n\u003e [...] the successful claim of indirect discrimination was based on a condition being imposed for the use of the Giggle app that Ms Tickle was required to have the appearance of a cisgender woman.\n\nThis is the problem. If the court first dismisses that \"sex\" is a biological category in law, then it can freely pivot to this idea that it all hinges on mere appearances. The argument can be internally logical, even though it is based on a rotten premise.\n\nAt least the judge decided against forcing a written apology, acknowledging that Grover holds her beliefs sincerely and is not deviating from them. Although, out of all the small blessings... \n\n(thanks @HebrideanHecate for the link)",
"sig": "250d99137c68e2177fba5bac1369e01ef3d47b32c9c1e44ba61fe25b1273920e8abd8e9f2096d53c6fbd6ac7dca255be3106196b74fb853cf71ff8041ce8535e"
}